Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Ohio has a new ballot measure like California's, for redistricting. Governor Schwarzenegger just endorsed that measure. In California, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is on television ads endorsing Proposition 77. This is a very curious interstate affair. To the extent that it affects red states (like Ohio) as well as blue states (CA), that helps balance measures. And don't tell me Ohio is not a red state.

First, Ohio is not a red state. Bush won the state by a percentage point, the number of registered Demcorats and Republicans is roughly equal and Clinton won the state twice. But I can understand how someone from California which is such an outlier to the left would mistake a balanced state for a conservative one.

I've read the operative parts of the 19 page proposed amendment. And I have to say that this obsession with the assumed objectivity of judges is naive in the extreme. I would like to see how representive the judicial (or even the broader legal) profession is of society as a whole with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, religiosity, class etc.

Both the Ohio measure and the California measure are based on a trade off between accountability and party involvement. Reducing party involvement reduces accountability. Going for the "non partisan" fantasy instead of the bi-partisan or multi-partisan reality is the same as putting these judges to the "unobserved test of principles" that the Bush administration wants with regard to torture.

Why should we endorse such trust in elites with regard to district boundaries but reject it with regard to torture? I say reject it all the time!

By the way NPR recently held up Iowa (another swing state like Ohio) as an example of "nonpartisan" districting. However a superficial examanation of Iowa's Congressional districts will show that Democrats are dramatically underrepresented in the state's House delegation when compared to the share of Bush's vote in the state in 2000 and 2004. And the shape of the districts can appear quite arbitrary.

Let me add to LTG's list. While it is true that Clinton won the state twice, he did so with victory percentages of 40% and 47%. While Carter won Ohio once, he won by a hair--48.92% to 48.65%. And no Democrat has won Ohio with an actual majority since LBJ.

On the other hand, George I, George II, and Reagan, and Nixon all won Ohio by outright majorities in at least one election.

You guys are just nuts. Ohio is only red if you see the world with solid blue eye glasses. The Republicans do not count on Ohio the way they count on Alabama or South Carolina or Wyoming. It's a swing state in that in any given election it could go either way. The problem they've got locally is that since Metzenbaum and Glenn retired the state Democratic party has been in a seriously dysfunctional mess. But the underlying political support is still about 50-50.

When the over all trend of the country leans Republican so does Ohio. That said, I'd bet that Ohio tends to be as close or closer than the national vote totals in most elections. That's a swing state. Sometimes that'll make Democrats win close or it'll make Republicans win close. But the Democratic Presidential candidates have either lost HUGE or won narrowly nationally so what would convince me is if Republicans did significantly better in Ohio than they did nationally. You will not find that.

By the way, I'd point out that by your argument, redistricting won't matter. If Ohio really is "Red" then the districts aren't causing the problem.

Oh and Taft's approval ratings are down around 20%. So much for "red state." Talk to me again in December 2006!

Oh by the way, Ohio's political future is more blue than red. Bush won in 2004 only through uprecedented rural voter turnout combined with badly under serviced voting precincts in Columbus and Cleveland.

Which brings me to why I think Ohio's future is if anything blue...It used to be that Cincinatti, Dayton and Columbus voted solidly Republican while only massive turnout in Cleveland would make the state vote Democrat. But as Columbus has overtaken Cleveland as the largest city, Columbus has become a Democratic stronghold (with a Democratic majority on its city council and a Democratic mayor - who is running for Governor to replace Taft). The question is can the Republicans sustain record breaking rural turnout every election year? Actually, they'd need to increase that turnout every year because Ohio (like the rest of the US) is urbanizing steadily.

Like fellow swing state, Florida, Ohio is becoming more and more urban and Democratic.

Boys, Boys, so many important things in the world, and you are on about what crummy color Ohio is? Let's compromise and call the state bloody purple.

That said, in the spirit of debate: Raised By REPUBLICANS, I remind you that half your own family (including your Ohio-based parents) are REPUBLICAN. HELLO! Ohio may swing, but it always ends up in the red camp.

I have another issue. RBR said, "I have to say that this obsession with the assumed objectivity of judges is naive in the extreme."

Who said objectivity? Don't confuse "objectivity" with fairness or non-partiality. Non partiality means that they listen to the arguments of both sides, weight each equally, and make a decision. I don't think we believe they are objective. If they were, they'd be Vulcan, for heaven's sake.

And by the way, I have to say that this obsession with the assumed blueness of Ohio is silly in the extreme. ;-)

I'm sorry but the Ohio misunderstanding is important. And calling is purple is no compromise that's what I've been saying all along. Ohio has counties that are solidly Democrat. The county I grew up in used to be solidly Republican and is not solidly Democrat.

The proportion of voters supporting the two parties is split almost exactly 50-50. If the results of elections have favored one party over the other recently, then that is a DIFFERENT problem than Ohio being dominated by Republicans.

The answer to this question is relevent to our discussion about redisctricting too. If LTG and Dr. Strangelove are right about Ohio being a solidly Republican state then the districting rules simply won't matter. In fact, Ohio is probably good evidence in favor of Dr. Strangelove's support for reform. But it's because it's a swing state that has been consistently captured by Republicans through manipulation of electoral rules. Again, talk to me in December 2006!

Yes, Ohio is not a *southern* state. Big deal. When they start voting reliably Democratic, and not for Democrats like Evan Bayh or John Breaux, but real progressives, then we'll talk. Otherwise, you've got Dennis Kucinich in a sea of Republicans. It's as irrational as claiming that CA is a red state b/c we elected Schwarzenegger. No, all that proves is that blue staters are capable of stupidity too.

I don't understand RBR's obsession with Ohio being a blue state. It's got no Democrats outside of a 'few counties' and is controlled by "bible-believing Christians" (i.e., bigots and idolators). RBR is correct that, unlike Mississippi, Ohio is salvageable, but the whole freakin' country has been screwed by Ohio voting Republican in 2000 and 2004.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe registered Republicans have a consistently higher turnout at the polls than do Democrats. So a 50-50 split in registration would actually mildly favor Republicans on election day. It's also not really 50-50, because there are plenty of independents.

I think the redistricting shenanigans plus elections manipulation have transformed this modest Republican leaning (on election day) into an apparent landslide of Republican elected officials from Ohio.

I believe RxR that Ohio is more of a swing state than a Red state--and we can win it back. But it needs to be won back, because it's been swinging Republican a lot more often than Democratic lately...

LTG, by your superficial definition, Louisiana is a blue state because it has a Demcoratic governor, Democratic majority in the assembly and a Democratic Senator. But for presidential purposes, Lousiana is either a red state or a swing state.

The ultimiate problem with this red state-blue state dichotomy is that it completely ignores that undlerying political divisions are not state vs state but rather urban vs rural. It also exagerates the significance of relatively narrow victories for one party or the other. In reality we are facing a continuous scale running from Utah or Texas on the right to California or New York on the left. Ohio is near the middle. But from either end it looks distant.

Yes, dichotomies are a problem. Louisiana has split government (1/2 senators and 1/2 lege houses), while Ohio is All Republican, All The Time. Louisiana may fit the category of swing state. Not Ohio - not anymore.